If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Re: tangible

Ray is right, tangible means concrete, something you can touch. You can use it as a metaphor, but this is almost the opposite of the meaning of the word, a poor metaphor. You could use "apparent" or "clear" but not tangible.

Re: tangible

Originally Posted by konungursvia

Ray is right, tangible means concrete, something you can touch.

May I ask my small question here?
My New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition states: "Anything that can be grasped, either with the hand or with the mind, is tangible."
May I say then, taking into account this entry, (for example) that my ideas of some aspects of life have become tangible, meaning that my mind has managed to grasp them firmly (or that after reading some philosophical books the understanding of my own life became more tangible than it had been before)?

Re: tangible

That is a good philosophical question, which enters into my specialty, intensional semantics.

However, the second sense is metaphorical, in relation to the first. Tangible means "touchable" or something we can literally grasp, i.e. a material object.

Intensonal philosophy identifies mental objects toward which we can turn our attention, and apprehend, such as the notion of colour or shape, as opposed to the actual colour or shape. If we refer to such notions as tangible, we are using the word metaphorically.

In the OP's example, the reading of a text may allow a reader better to grasp a notion or concept, on an individual basis, but the notion or concept is not itself made more tangible in the process.

It's a poor choice of words in this case, in my view. I'd suggest "palpable" if you must, but I still find I agree with Ray's general idea.

Re: tangible

That is a good philosophical question, which enters into my specialty, intensional semantics.

In the OP's example, the reading of a text may allow a reader better to grasp a notion or concept, on an individual basis, but the notion or concept is not itself made more tangible in the process.

It's a poor choice of words in this case, in my view. I'd suggest "palpable" if you must, but I still find I agree with Ray's general idea.

After thinking about this it seems this entry ("Anything that can be grasped, either with the hand or with the mind, is tangible.") isn't very precise in its definition. It seems that some concepts are tangible by their nature as bricks are tangible by their 'physical nature'. In other words some concepts are tangible because their essence involves tangibility. Consequently, we may assume that concepts are (were) created and exist outside of our mind.
The aforesaid perfectly conforms with what Raymott said:

[...] reading doesn't make anything tangible.

but does not go along with what that entry states. If my mind does not grasp some concepts it does not mean that they are not tangible.